Plastic eating enzymes have interested scientists looking for solutions to increasing plastic waste. Enzymes are important to living things because, as proteins, they allow biochemical reactions to happen faster than they would otherwise. They aid in everything from breathing to digestion. Enzymes are even used in food processing, paper industries, and detergents.
Because enzymes are so diverse in their uses, scientists have engineered a new enzyme to help us with our plastic program. These super plastic eating enzymes can break down plastic in a few days. Scientists believe this is a natural adaptation by the bacteria and might be a response to the increase of plastic in the environment.
The most common type of plastic that plastic eating enzymes can recycle is polyethylene terephthalate (PET). PET is a type of plastic used in many common products, such as bottles, food packaging, and textiles.
Other types of plastic that can be recycled by enzymes include:
High-density polyethylene (HDPE): found in plastic bottles and children’s toys.
Low-density polyethylene (LDPE): found in plastic bags, shrink wrap and food packaging.
Polypropylene (PP): found in disposable medical devices, textiles and auto parts.
Polystyrene/styrofoam (PS): found in takeout food containers, consumer electronics packaging and packing peanuts.
As the enzyme breaks down plastic, the bacteria produce MHETase, by which the enzymes break the pieces down further. After this process, other bacteria can break down the products into CO2 and water. Unlike other recycling methods, they can break down plastic into its original components, which can be reused to create new products. Enzymes require less energy than traditional methods, such as mechanical recycling. But maybe best of all is that they can be used to recycle plastic that is difficult or impossible to recycle using traditional methods such as those mixed with fabric or other dissimilar materials.
These plastic eating enzymes are now making an appearance in the fashion industry. The fashion industry uses tons of plastic-derived fibres in many clothing products. What’s worse is that very few of these materials are recycled today. Fashion brands have been known to turn to mechanical recycling and approaches using solvents to repurpose textiles for reuse. The challenge with these approaches is that they involve virgin plastics and require a lot of energy. Using plastic eating enzymes will break down plastic more efficiently. They will turn the materials into monomers that act like virgin-quality materials.
Athletic apparel company Lulelemon has teamed up with Australian startup Samara Eco to help them break down old textiles so they can be turned into new ones. Samara Eco has optimized plastic eating enzymes found in nature to efficiently recycle PET and polyester plastics at scale so they can be made into new, virgin-grade plastic.
The plastic waste is sourced and prepared for recycling by cold washing. The enzymes revert the plastic waste from its complex state into its original form. The plastics are then separated from any other additives like colourants. The recycled monomers can then be used in the re-manufacturing of brand-new plastics.
Using this technology, Lululemon hopes to spin used nylon and polyester blends from pre-owner, damaged or discarded apparel into a form that can be used in new collections. The partnership is Lululemon’s first-ever minority investment in a recycling company and Samsara’s first partnership with a clothing manufacturer. The recycling company hopes to make breakthroughs into the mainstream fashion industry as well as work with partners in other spaces to meet its goal of recycling 1.5 million tonnes of textiles by 2030.
This partnership is also part of Lululemon’s Be Planet goals and a step toward a circular ecosystem by 2030. Samsara Eco’s infinite recycling helps to close the clothing loop by using apparel waste to create new recycled materials over and over.
The two companies will create new recycled nylon and polyester made from apparel waste. They will be able to show that recycling textiles and repurposing materials is possible and can be done sustainably. This partnership might be the move we need to change the fashion industry for the future of our planet.
The future is mushroom surfboards; companies like Wyve Surf, Notox Surf, and the Ecoboard Project all manufacture boards using recycled materials or eco-friendly materials to show that not only are environmentally friendly boards possible to be made, and they are, in many cases, better than conventional boards made with petrochemicals. This understanding that surfers deserve and want better than industry standard drives Steve Davies, a surfer and design student creating mushroom surfboards out of Mycelia.
Hailing from Porthcawl, Wales, Davies has known for a long time that the surf industry, for all its eco-friendly aesthetic, is lacking in manufacturing their boards. These petrochemical boards oftentimes break and are washed out to sea, releasing plastic into the oceans that inevitably make their way into flora and fauna and, ultimately, back into us.
Surfing for many demands respect and an understanding of the ocean and nature. Thus, the demand for an eco-friendly board is prominent in his market research. This is why he creates his mushroom surfboards entirely made of sustainable materials. His board is made by creating a natural mold of a surfboard, in which the mycelium can grow to create his all-natural board. The board is then coated with a natural waterproofing material; in his interview with the BBC, he is experimenting with beeswax and linseed oil.
He started collecting substrate for the mycelia, which he had access to due to living on a farm with lots of straw and horse bedding. He explained in his project journal, “This sparked an idea to start a business/surfboard manufacturer from an agricultural point of view — growing surfboards on a farm near the beach whilst using waste materials from that very same farm, reducing the transport of materials, and therefore reducing carbon released into the environment.” According to Davies, he can grow a mushroom surfboard in the right conditions in 21 days. He plans to upscale his project to commercial levels, providing an eco-friendly board that gives back to the oceans that surfers rely on instead of degrading them. This development can also be incredibly profitable, as the surfing industry is expected to expand to $3.2 billion by 2027, up from $2.2 billion in 2020.
Alternative materials are crucial to the green transition we are currently experiencing. The reliance on plastic materials has led us to create nearly everything we have out of petrochemicals. While this has been cheap and effective for us in the short-term, we will continue to see further degradation of our natural environment, which we truly rely on, if we don’t work further to make alternative materials the main way we create in our world. Apparel manufacturers are also looking to Mycelia to replace leather in their products.
Surfing, in particular, relies entirely on the oceans, and surfers are the ones who experience firsthand the amount of plastic pollution and its detrimental effects. It only makes sense to create sustainable boards for surfers, by surfers. And as the world continues to transition to a green future, sustainable surfers will potentially be poised to profit immensely from it.
A tiny wax worm can dissolve plastic pollution with its saliva, new research has found.
Plastic can take up to 1000 years to decompose, clogging up landfill and polluting the ocean.
But climate campaigners have recruited an unlikely new ally in their fight to reduce this waste – wax worms, the moth larvae that infest beehives.
The worm’s saliva contains two enzymes that can degrade polyethylene, a tough material used in plastic bags and bottles.
According to Spanish researchers, one hour’s exposure to the worm’s saliva degrades the material as much as years of weathering.
The impetus for the study came in 2017 when a scientist – and amateur beekeeper – was cleaning out an infested hive.
The larvae had started eating holes in a plastic refuse bag.
“To the best of our knowledge, these enzymes (in the saliva) are the first animal enzymes with this capability, opening the way to potential solutions for plastic waste management through bio-recycling/up-cycling,” the research report – published in Nature this month – reads.
Scientists have discovered that enzymes in wax worm saliva dissolve plastic
How bad is plastic for the planet?
Humans have littered the entire planet with damaging plastic debris.
The hardy material takes millions of years to decompose. Of the 10 billion tonnes of plastic that have ever been created, a whopping 6 billion sits in landfill sites or pollute the environment.
This has a devastating impact on wildlife – more than 90 per cent of the world’s seabirds have plastic in their guts.
Recycling can help mitigate some of the worst effects of plastics. Yet a 2022 report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that just 9 per cent of plastic is successfully recycled.
This is where the wax worms come in. They can help dissolve polyethylene, which accounts for roughly 30 per cent of plastic production worldwide.
Wax worms aren’t the only solution that scientists have come up with to combat our ever-growing plastic problem.
Plastic-munching superworms
From eating less meat to buying local ingredients, there are lots of ways to make environmentally friendly food choices. And according to a 2022 Australian study, certain types of worms can adopt an eco-diet too – but not in the way you might think.
Queensland scientists have discovered that the Zophobas morio – a type of beetle larvae commonly known as a superworm – can survive on polystyrene alone.
Over three weeks, the research team fed three groups of superworms different diets.
The worms on the plastic diet acted like “mini recycling plants,” lead author Dr Chris Rinke explains, destroying the plastic with their unique gut enzymes.
They even put on weight in the process.
“[The superworms] shred the polystyrene with their mouths and then fed it to the bacteria in their gut,” says Dr Rinke.
If scientists can work out how to grow the gut enzyme in a lab, they could use it to dissolve plastics on a mass scale, forming these byproducts into bioplastics.
“We can then look into how we can upscale this process to a level required for an entire recycling plant,” said Co-author of the research, PhD candidate Jiarui Sun.
Given that polystyrene accounts for around one-tenth of all non-fibrous plastics, this would be a significant breakthrough.
Efforts to shift from petrochemical plastics to renewable and biodegradable plastics have proven tricky — the production process can require toxic chemicals and is expensive, and the mechanical strength and water stability is often insufficient. But researchers have made a breakthrough, using wood byproducts, that shows promise for producing more durable and sustainable bioplastics.
A study published in Nature Sustainability, co-authored by Yuan Yao, assistant professor of industrial ecology and sustainable systems at Yale School of the Environment (YSE), outlines the process of deconstructing the porous matrix of natural wood into a slurry. The researchers say the resulting material shows a high mechanical strength, stability when holding liquids, and UV-light resistance. It can also be recycled or safely biodegraded in the natural environment, and has a lower life-cycle environmental impact when compared with petroleum-based plastics and other biodegradable plastics.
“There are many people who have tried to develop these kinds of polymers in plastic, but the mechanical strands are not good enough to replace the plastics we currently use, which are made mostly from fossil fuels,” says Yao. “We’ve developed a straightforward and simple manufacturing process that generates biomass-based plastics from wood, but also plastic that delivers good mechanical properties as well.”
To create the slurry mixture, the researchers used a wood powder — a processing residue usually discarded as waste in lumber mills — and deconstructed the loose, porous structure of the powder with a biodegradable and recyclable deep eutectic solvent (DES). The resulting mixture, which features nanoscale entanglement and hydrogen bonding between the regenerated lignin and cellulose micro/nanofibrils, has a high solid content and high viscosity, which can be casted and rolled without breaking.
Yao then led a comprehensive life cycle assessment to test the environmental impacts of the bioplastic against commons plastics. Sheets of the bioplastic were buried in soil, fracturing after two weeks and completely degrading after three months; additionally, researchers say the bioplastic can be broken back down into the slurry by mechanical stirring, which also allows for the DES to be recovered and reused.
“We’ve developed a straightforward and simple manufacturing process that generates biomass-based plastics from wood, but also plastic that delivers good mechanical properties as well.” — Yuan Yao, assistant professor of industrial ecology and sustainable systems
“That, to me, is what really makes this plastic good: It can all be recycled or biodegraded,” says Yao. “We’ve minimized all of the materials and the waste going into nature.”
The bioplastic has numerous applications, says Liangbing Hu, a professor at the Center for Materials Innovation at the University of Maryland and co-author of the paper. It can be molded into a film that can be used in plastic bags and packaging — one of the major uses of plastic and causes of waste production. Hu also says that because the bioplastic can be molded into different shapes, it has potential for use in automobile manufacturing, as well.
One area the research team continues to investigate is the potential impact on forests if the manufacturing of this bioplastic is scaled up. While the process currently uses wood byproducts in manufacturing, the researchers say they are keenly aware that large-scale production could require usage of massive amounts of wood, which could have far-reaching implications on forests, land management, ecosystems and climate change, to name a few.
Yao says the research team has already begun working with a forest ecologist to create forest simulation models, linking the growth cycle of forests with the manufacturing process. She also sees an opportunity to collaborate with people who work in forest-related fields at YSE — an uncommon convenience.
“It’s not often an engineer can walk down the hall and talk to a forester,” says Yao.
Yao, an emerging scholar in the field of industrial ecology, joined the YSE faculty last year. Her research examines the environmental and economic impacts of emerging technologies and industrial processes., integrating interdisciplinary approaches from the fields of industrial ecology, sustainable engineering, and systems modeling to develop techniques that promote more sustainable engineering approaches and policies.
Reference: “A strong, biodegradable and recyclable lignocellulosic bioplastic” by Qinqin Xia, Chaoji Chen, Yonggang Yao, Jianguo Li, Shuaiming He, Yubing Zhou, Teng Li, Xuejun Pan, Yuan Yao and Liangbing Hu, 25 March 2021, Nature Sustainability. DOI: 10.1038/s41893-021-00702-w
The Ocean Cleanup has partnered with Konecranes to series produce Interceptors
This partnership prepares The Ocean Cleanup for global Interceptor scale-up
New design updates improve efficiency for operations and mass production
Two Interceptors with these design changes are being built in tandem, in Malaysia right now
To rapidly address the urgent problem of plastic pollution, we must deploy Interceptors on an industrial scale, but we cannot do this by ourselves. Today, we announced that we are partnering with Konecranes to handle manufacturing and series production of Interceptors in their MHE-Demag facilities in Malaysia – with two in production right now. Over the last year and a half, we have gained valuable insights into the Interceptor technology and, together with Konecranes’ MHE-Demag, we have made updates to the design that improve its operational and manufacturing efficiency.
Interceptors 005 and 006 being manufactured side by side at Konecranes’ MHE-Demag
INTERCEPTOR DESIGN UPDATES
Laying the groundwork for global scaleup, Interceptors 005 and 006 are currently being built simultaneously at Konecranes’ MHE-Demag facility in Klang, Malaysia and are expected to be completed in May 2021. These two Interceptors will be different from the 1st and 2nd generations deployed in Jakarta, Indonesia; Klang, Malaysia; and Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. Because we have chosen an iterative design path, we continually learn about our technology in real-time and adjust the technology. This process is ongoing so that we are always learning, adapting, and iterating. The 3rd generation is the result of knowledge gained from these deployments to help improve its collection efficiency and ease of production. The key updates to the next Interceptors are:
Conveyor belt: The conveyor belt is now 2.5 meters (1.6x wider). The expanded width allows for a less obstructive flow and better distribution to the dumpsters.
Barge and dumpsters: To adapt to the new conveyor belt width, the barge and the six dumpsters inside the Interceptor are now widened as well, which makes transfer from conveyor to dumpster easier and more effective.
Power and energy system: The new Interceptor design features improved monocrystalline solar cell panels and a smart energy storage system, which is smaller but still meets the 100% solar energy demand required to operate the Interceptor.
Catamaran Structure: This updated version features a new frame and catamaran structure built from the ground up. The modular design is specifically designed to facilitate containerization and swift deployment globally.
Preliminary visual representation of Interceptor front view – 2nd Gen in the back and 3rd Gen in the front.
WHY KONECRANES IS OUR CHOSEN PARTNER
Konecranes is renowned for its market-leading technology and service in material handling and lifting products. Its engineering and design expertise, along with its global service network, will enable them to assemble and install Interceptors around the world. Moving forward, Konecranes will handle Interceptor manufacturing, installation, and maintenance; local partners will oversee operations, and The Ocean Cleanup will continue to act as the technology and best practices provider, lead business development for upcoming Interceptor projects, and further conduct scientific research.
GOING GLOBAL
Our aim is to address the 1000 most polluting rivers around the world to achieve our goal of clean oceans. Because we are a small team, we could not do this alone – and we never planned to. Thanks to partnerships like Konecranes we can benefit from their manufacturing expertise and global footprint while we continue to develop our technology. Interceptors 005 and 006 are expected to be completed in May 2021 with one more in the lineup for LA County.
Replacing plastics used in buildings with metal, wood, ceramics and glass, turning to paper and fabric for packaging, and boosting recycling rates could slash planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, researchers said on Monday.
A mixture of substitution, changes in business models and consumer behaviour, and producing more plastics without using fossil fuels could halve global plastic consumption and cut emissions from plastics by more than half, they said.
Otherwise, emissions from plastics are expected to increase threefold by 2050, jeopardising a goal of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, said a new report from the London-based Overseas Development Institute.
“Although plastics permeate our lives and every corner of our planet, it is technically possible to largely phase them out,” the report said.
When somebody buys a plastic product, they don’t actually generate emissions when they’re using it. But there’s emissions embodied in the product from the previous stages. – Andrew Scott, research fellow, Overseas Development Institute
Lead researcher Andrew Scott told the Thomson Reuters Foundation that all but 1-2 per cent of plastics are made from fossil fuels, principally oil and gas, with the emissions produced at different stages of the value chain.
“When somebody buys a plastic product, they don’t actually generate emissions when they’re using it. But there’s emissions embodied in the product from the previous stages,” he said, adding emissions could also come from discarded plastics.
The largest use of plastic is for packaging, accounting for 36 per cent of total output in 2015, followed by construction at 16 per cent, the report said.
However, switching to non-plastic alternatives that are currently available, such as wood and metal, could reduce the use of plastics in the construction industry by 95 per cent, it said.
A combination of regulation on single-use plastics and changes in consumer behaviour could cut plastic consumption by 78 per cent in the packaging sector, it added.
There is also much room for improvement with recycling as only about 20 per cent of plastic waste is recycled today, the report noted.
It also looked at the automotive and electrical and electronic equipment sectors, which together with construction and packaging make up more than 60 per cent of plastic use, said Scott.
North America, Europe and East Asia consume almost two-thirds of the world’s plastics, the report said.
Globally, per-capita consumption of plastics is 47 kg (103.6 lb) per year, but in Africa and South Asia, it is less than 10 kg per year.
A report last week from the Changing Markets Foundation criticised consumer giants such as Colgate-Palmolive, Danone, Nestlé and Unilever for failing to meet their pledges to use less plastic in their products.
It also said they had lobbied against and undermined efforts to tackle plastic pollution, a charge the companies denied.
This story was published with permission from Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, climate change, resilience, women’s rights, trafficking and property rights. Visit http://news.trust.org/climate.
Think about every toothbrush, every plastic razor, plastic bag or “disposable” water bottle, every straw, plastic cup…every shampoo bottle you’ve ever used. Every. Single. One. Now consider that with an estimated lifetime of at least 450 years, plastic will outlive you as well as your great-great-great-great-grandchildren. At worst case – it will NEVERgo away. As both the human population and plastic production continue to increase, we are all living now in our own plastic waste.
If anything can attest to the issue of plastics – it is Earth’s oceans. It is estimated that the ocean contains 5.25 trillion pieces of plastic while 99.9% of floating marine debris is plastic. Much of this plastic is found in ocean gyres, massive surface currents that circulate in each of Earth’s major oceans. Plastic gets funneled into theses currents where it collects, forming what scientists refer to as trash islands. Currently, each ocean gyre contains its own island of trash.
While these plastic patches of marine debris are called garbage islands, this name can be misleading. The term may conjure mental images of large floating structures, yet much plastic exists as nurdles, microplastics less than 5mm inches in size. Nurdles form through photochemical reactions with sunlight, a process commonly referred to as dry rot and can be further broken down by wind and wave action. Other plastics begin small, such as the microbeads found in many cosmetic items or plastic fibers found in our clothing and textiles. These tiny plastics create what is commonly referred to as “plastic soup,” however larger plastics are found in the gyres as well including plastic containers, bottles, lids, rope, packaging, and discarded fishing equipment.
Perhaps the best known of these gyres is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, currently measuring in at twice the size of Texas. Like all plastic islands, the Pacific Garbage Patch is growing. Recent findings suggest that Pacific plastic pollution is 16 times higher than previously reported and based on data collected by boats or air, is estimated to weigh a total of 80,000 tonnes. As plastics revolve around the Pacific trash vortex, they entangle marine organisms or are consumed by them.
Plastic islands are only one observable aspect of ocean pollution, yet no square mile of ocean is free of plastic. It is estimated that of all the ocean plastic, only 30% is found at the surface while the rest sinks to the ocean depths.
For animals that live in the ocean, these plastics are often detrimental. Because plastics don’t break down, they remain intact in the bellies of the animals that consume them — leading to malnutrition and eventually starvation. Plastic is the cause of death to one million seabirds worldwide while another 100,000 marine animals die due to starvation or entanglement in ocean plastics.
Regardless of your proximity to the sea, ocean plastics affect us all. The ocean plays a vital role in the transport of heat and nutrients, controlling Earth’s climate and supporting our planet’s largest and most diverse ecosystems. Ocean plankton produces 70% of Earth’s oxygen while nearly 3 billion people worldwide – almost half of the global population, rely on seafood for their primary source of protein. Furthermore, 10% of people globally rely on healthy fisheries for their livelihoods while the oceans contribute an estimated U$D1.5 trillion annually to the world’s economy. The oceans are also a vital carbon sink, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to reduce the impacts of global climate change. Despite the oceans’ importance, plastic is projected to outweigh the fish in the ocean by 2050.
Ocean plastic should be of particular concern to those of us who enjoy seafood. Microplastics or plastic fibers are often consumed by fish or shellfish before working their way up the food chain. Scientists who study plastic pollution in shellfish claim “when you eat clams and oysters, you’re eating plastics as well” while several fish species are also expected to contain plastics. Plastic releases numerous toxins such as bisphenol-A and phthalates, compounds are known to cause cancers and birth defects, impair immunity, and disrupt our bodies’ endocrine system. Not only are plastics themselves harmful, but they also act like a sponge to ocean pollutants. Toxic metals, detergents, pesticides, and other marine pollutants have also been found adsorbed on ocean plastics.
Ocean plastics are expected to increase up to 3 times their current amount by 2050 and while these projections sound stark, there are several things we can all do in order to reduce the issue. Most ocean plastic, an estimated 80%, originates on land. As land-dwellers, we all must do our best to decrease the amount of plastic entering our oceans. This can be accomplished through recycling or better yet, just simply buying less plastic.
Reducing your plastic use can sound a tad overwhelming, but I am here to assure you that it is not only is it possible but relatively easy once in the habit! Plastic is everywhere, consciously acknowledging this fact is half the battle. Once you become aware of your plastic use, it is much easier to decrease it. Think about the plastic products you use on a normal basis and how you could use less.
When cutting plastic consumption, start by reducing your use of single-use plastics. Single-use plastics are exactly what they sound like – plastics that are used only once then discarded. Water bottles, straws, plastic bags, coffee cups, and plastic silverware are typical culprits, though nearly halfof all plastic produced each year is considered “disposable”. Thankfully, you can easily purchase sustainable products to replace these single-use plastics. Considering the fact that the average plastic is typically only 12 minutes or that one million water bottles sold every minute, replacing these items with reusables can make a massive difference. You can even buy reusable straws or silverware to prevent any unwanted single-use plastics. Joining groups like the Plastic Pollution Coalition, the Green Education Foundation, or Plastic Free July can help to further educate and inspire on your path towards less plastic.
The fishing industry also plays a massive role in ocean plastics, and scientists were surprised to discover that, by weight, 46% of the plastics found in the Pacific Garbage Patch exist as or originate from discarded fishing gear. Fishing gear is especially dangerous because it is specifically designed to capture and kill marine organisms. To prevent the loss of fishing gear, a detrimental practice known as ghost fishing, support sustainable fisheries. Seafood Watch, an organization of The Monterey Bay Aquarium has compiled a list of sustainable seafood species and partners, which can be found here. Divers can also play a role by joining ghost fishing removal groups, like the Ghost Fishing Foundation.
So, what can you do to help? If you would like to contribute financially, our oceans would greatly appreciate it. We would recommend supporting Boyan Slat’s Ocean Cleanup. Boyan is the Elon Musk of marine sustainability. Since 18 years of age, he has gone to battle with the largest collection of ocean plastics on planet Earth: the Great Pacific Garbage patch. If you do not believe in the effectiveness of the NGO charity model (which is a belief that has valid points) – there are plenty of for-profit organizations that are saving the planet as a by-product of their business operations. The Brothers of iDiveblue like the concept behind 4Ocean– but if you have your doubts, we have written a review of the 4Ocean Initiative.
However, money is not the be-all and end-all. Many people want to help save our oceans but feel despondent because they just don’t have the money to donate. You can make a difference without money! How are you using Tupperware and shopping bags? What straws do you use? Do we even need straws? And what about your voice?
Perhaps one of the best things we can do is lead by example and educate others about the plastic problem. Many are unaware of the detrimental impacts of single-use plastics and have genuinely never considered it. Educate your friends and loved ones and don’t allow yourself to become discouraged! Every small step makes a difference. If we can all find one change to make it will have a serious impact on ocean plastics.
Plastic today is a serious but solvable issue. Plastic has been detected in hundreds of food items, sea salt, beer, and in both bottled and tap water. Toxins from these plastics have been found in our blood, and even breast milk. Not only do these plastics harm us, but they also continue to have a detrimental effect on marine organisms and one of our greatest resources — the sea. Furthermore, plastics are typically made from oil, a nonrenewable resource whose extraction is detrimental to the environment. Currently, 8% of all oil is used for plastics and this number is expected to reach 20% by 2050. Plastics degrade our environment, consume valuable fossil fuels, and impact our health, but through personal action to reduce plastic use and educate others about the harmful consequences of plastics, we can all work towards a healthier and sustainable future.
REACH OUT
We always speak about ‘They’. They need to do something about the plastic problem. They need to stop overfishing. What They are doing to our oceans is simply unacceptable. But who are They?
The government? The government is an administrative body elected by the people. The government exists only to serve out the needs of those people. They is in fact our society, a collection of individuals. You are one of those individuals, and so am I. There is no They, there is only We, and We are all part of the problem. However, We can choose to be part of the solution instead. Sure, sometimes it feels like one individual has such a small chance of creating meaningful change – so why bother. But remember, if everyone had that mindset, there is 100% chance that nothing will change.
We only have one Earth. We can make a difference.
You have a Part to Play – join us in our fight against the Ecological Disaster of our Age.
2019 Update: 225 Containers Shipped Per Day to Countries with Poor Waste Management and 120 Million Kg of Carbon Emissions
In just two short years, the world has awoken to the hidden, harsh realities of the plastic waste trade that is called “recycling.” More than 100 investigations and reports have shown serious environmental and social harms in receiving countries. In the recent “Plastic Wars,” FRONTLINE and NPR showed plastic waste from the United States (U.S.) dumped and burned in Indonesian communities in 2019. Making climate change worse, millions of tons of carbon have been emitted in shipping U.S. plastic waste to far frontiers where the reports show that the plastic waste may not have actually been recycled.
Now, a new reason to end export of post-consumer plastic waste has appeared: coronavirus COVID-19. The virus is spread from human contact and was found alive on “a variety of surfaces” of the Diamond Princess cruise ship after 17 days, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Since transit times of sea freight shipments can be less than 17 days and the investigations and reports clearly show that exported post-consumer plastic waste is often manually sorted by poor workers of all ages in unsafe conditions, there is the potential for people in receiving countries to be exposed.
Circulating post-consumer plastic waste around the world doesn’t create the clean economy we need to protect human health and ecosystems. There were more than enough valid reasons to stop the plastic waste trade before the outbreak of the global pandemic in 2020. It is clear now more than ever: the harms and risks far outweigh the perceived benefits of avoiding plastic waste disposal to U.S. landfills. Actions to find markets for discarded plastic materials collected in U.S. communities should not negatively impact communities in other countries.
A Brief Recap
Back in 2017, there was little public understanding of what happens to plastic waste that consumers in industrialized countries put in bins for recycling. Outside of the waste and recycling industry, the U.S. public assumed that safe, clean U.S. factories ground up the plastic and American workers made it into new products. With credit to theNew York Times Opinion video “The Great Recycling Con,” some of us thought it was like a scene from Toy Story. The public didn’t know that the U.S. exported 276,200 shipping containers (1.5 million metric tons) of plastic waste to countries with poor waste management in 2017. As shown in the documentary “Plastic China,” it turns out that our plastic waste was not cleanly or efficiently processed into new plastic products that Americans bought. It was sometimes crudely sorted, shredded and melted by impoverished families in unsafe, unhealthy conditions into low quality plastic that never returned to the U.S. in new products. A waste and recycling expert now states that even before China’s policy changes, “a lot of areas fooled themselves into thinking they were recycling when they were really not.”
Two years ago in 2018, China enacted the National Sword policy restricting plastic waste imports to protect their environment and develop their own domestic recycling capacity. In response, many recyclers moved their operations from China to other countries in Asia, leading to the rise of over two hundred illegal operations in Malaysia. Since exporting plastic waste is a convenient way for the U.S. and other industrialized countries to count plastic waste as “recycled” and avoid disposal costs and impacts at home, there was a significant increase of plastic waste shipments to other countries instead of China. As Malaysia’s Environment Minister stated: “Garbage is traded under the pretext of recycling.” The executive director of the New Haven Solid Waste and Recycling Authority agreed: “Ninety percent of our stuff was going over to China. They were taking all of our plastics, cardboard, paper, you name it. We were in essence shipping them our garbage.”
One year ago, we published “157,000 Shipping Containers of U.S. Plastic Waste Exported to Countries with Poor Waste Management in 2018” to quantify the amount of U.S. plastic waste exports and document the harms that were being caused in other countries. Over the past year, we called for an end to this irresponsible method of handling of our nation’s plastic waste and asked U.S. waste companies and cities to stop exporting it.
Now we report that progress was made in 2019 in reducing U.S. plastic waste exports down to 88,000 shipping containers to countries with poor waste management. Much of the reduction was due to the effective enactment of a plastic waste import ban by India in August 2019. Another positive trend has been an increase in public awareness and opposition to this irresponsible practice and commitments from some waste/recycling companies and communities to stop exporting. But we’ve also learned that the social, environmental and economic harms caused by plastic waste exports in developing countries are even worse than we knew a year ago. In addition, the significant carbon emissions from the sea freight of exporting all U.S. plastic waste around the world have been overlooked while contributing to climate change.
As we started 2020, several nations continued to be flooded with U.S. plastic waste and we had hit a plateau in reducing plastic waste exports. Figure 1 shows that the U.S. exported 436 million kg in 2019 and is still exporting over 5,600 shipping containers (30 million kg) of plastic waste every month to countries with high waste mismanagement. That means about 225 large 20-ft (TEU) shipping containers per day landed in countries without adequate environmental, health, safety and labor laws to be processed by “recyclers” who provide no proof of what happens to the imported plastic waste.
The actual amount of U.S. plastic waste that ends in countries with high waste mismanagement may be even higher because the U.S. exports millions of kgs of plastic waste to countries like Canada and South Korea who may re-export U.S. plastic waste to other countries. Figure 1 shows that as plastic waste exports to India declined, exports to Malaysia dramatically increased, more than tripling from 3 million kg/month in January 2019 to 9.8 million kg/month in December 2019.
Figure 1 – 2019 U.S. Plastic Waste Exports to Countries with High Waste Mismanagement Rates
1.Food chain contamination: As the BBC reported in November 2019: ”the burning of plastic waste in Indonesia, much of which has been sent there by the West, is poisoning the food chain. Environmental group IPEN found, in one East Java village, toxic dioxins in chicken eggs 70 times the level allowed by European safety standards.”
2.Harm to domestic waste collection and recycling system development in countries that need it most. In June 2019, the Guardian USA reported that “a surge in foreign waste shipments is disrupting efforts to handle locally generated plastics” in Turkey, a country with a 16% waste mismanagement and less than 1% recycling rate. As an Istanbul recycler stated: ‘‘I want to tell people in U.S. this: recycle in your own yard. Don’t bring down our income and put us all in danger of hunger.’’ As Malaysia’s Prime Minister stated: “We don’t need your waste because our own waste is enough to give us problems.” The mayor of a Philippine town flooded with plastic waste imports said: “I think we have enough waste in the country to process, reuse and recycle. We don’t need waste from abroad.” In Indonesia, recycling businesses prefer to process imported plastic waste instead of investing in collection of domestic plastic waste. Proving the point, industrialized South Korea recently restricted import of PET bottle plastic waste in order to promote collection and recycling of domestic PET in their own country.
3.Health and safety impacts to workers and communities: The Center for Public Integrity showed evidence of plastic packaging labeled “Made in USA” being burned and dumped in Malaysia. Burning of plastic is causing breathing problems in residents who live nearby facilities in Malaysia. A village in Indonesia is being buried by plastic waste imports. The Guardian reports that in Valenzuela City, Philippines residents blame recycling plants for pungent smells and respiratory illnesses.
4.Global plastic waste shell game: As some countries restrict imports, there are reports of exporters and brokers mislabeling waste and routing it through Hong Kong to avoid traceability. The Malaysian government found that brokers have been falsifying declaration forms by using other Harmonized System (HS) codes to bring in plastic scraps. As the South China Morning Post reported in January 2020, “Hong Kong is one of biggest re-exporters of waste after mainland China stopped importing it.” While Hong Kong itself has very limited plastic recycling capacity, it has become an intermediate port that enables more shipments into Asia, both legal and illegally. The re-export step creates confusion in the traceability of plastic waste. Environmental groups in Hong Kong are calling on authorities to not accept plastic waste that is not destined for reprocessing there. Even when illegal waste is found, returning the waste to the country of origin is problematic. In October 2019, the Basel Action Network reported that illegal U.S. waste shipments that were supposed to be returned to their U.S. senders were instead shipped to India, Thailand, South Korea, and Vietnam. Inspection of paper imports identified illegal plastic waste hidden in the bales.
5.Potential transmission from post-consumer plastic waste: Stored piles of plastic waste and manual sorting of post-consumer waste are creating risks for disease and virus transmission:
a.Plastic waste piles: The Tamil Nadu (India) Health Secretary said that plastic waste is one of the reasons for mosquito breeding that is causing an increasing number of dengue fever cases. The city of Laredo, Texas sent collected recyclable materials directly to landfill over concerns that storage of materials at the recycling center posed a risk to community health.
b.Manual sorting: The CDC advises that people with the coronavirus should not share dishes and drinking glasses and their waste products should be disposed. But the WHO states that “Some people become infected but don’t develop any symptoms and don’t feel unwell.” The WHO also states that coronavirus can live on plastic surfaces for “up to several days.” While a direct link has not yet been proven, it is logical to reason that post-consumer waste may pose a potential health risk to both U.S. and foreign workers that manually sort collected materials from people who are unaware that they have the virus. The risk is particularly acute in poor countries where workers lack health and safety equipment. At the time of this update in early April, concern over coronavirus spread has led to the closure of some municipal recycling curbside and community collection programs to protect workers, including throughout Orange County, California. The situation is still unfolding and the latest news is being reported by Waste Dive.
Tracing the Paths of U.S. Plastic Waste Flows
Figure 2 shows the 2019 exports of plastic waste by origination and destination for the fifteen states with largest amount of plastic waste exports.
California: With ports on the West Coast and a large population, California shipped the most plastic waste to countries with high waste mismanagement: 78 million kg (14,675 TEU shipping containers). This included 6.6 million kg (1233 TEU shipping containers) to Turkey – a nautical distance of 11,301 miles away. The carbon emissions of sea freight of California’s plastic waste exports to Turkey alone are equal to the annual carbon emissions of 364 U.S. cars. (See carbon emissions estimation below).
Northeast States: Prior to the enactment of India’s ban on plastic waste imports on August 30, 2019, states in the Northeast U.S. were shipping millions of kg each month to the country. At the peak in May 2019, New Jersey shipped 3 million kg to India in one month. By December 2019, this declined 87% to 382,000 kg.
Southeast States: While Southeast U.S. states are cited as a top location for U.S. domestic plastic recycling, the U.S. Census Bureau data shows that these states are major exporters of plastic waste to countries with high waste mismanagement rates. Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee exported 80 million kg of plastic waste to countries with poor waste management in 2019 and did not recycle that plastic waste in their states.
Figure 2: Top 15 U.S. States Exporting Plastic Waste to Countries with Poor Waste Management in 2019
The Forgotten Carbon Footprint of Plastic Recycling: Sea Freight and Long-Distance Trucking Emissions
Commonly cited metrics for carbon emission savings from recycling post-consumer plastic compared to using other materials or new plastic overlook two major sources of carbon emissions: sea freight and long-distance trucking. The Association of Plastic Recycler’s Life Cycle Impacts of Postconsumer Recycled Resins study is based on trucking and rail distances less than 500 miles for moving bales to processors.
Figure 3 shows the top 20 U.S. district dispatch ports exporting plastic waste in 2019. The carbon emissions from the sea freight can be credibly estimated through use of an existing sea freight carbon emissions calculator. While long distance trucking of the plastic waste from inland states to dispatch ports also creates carbon emissions, it is not possible to estimate those emissions due to lack of land logistics and route data.
Figure 3: Top 20 U.S. District Dispatch Ports Exporting Plastic Waste in 2019
Sea Freight Emissions: Employing the Kuehne and Nagel Sea Freight Carbon Calculator, the carbon emissions of dispatch port-to-receiving country port were made for the 451 shipping routes in 2019. For example, the carbon emissions of shipping 4,030 shipping containers from Los Angeles to Hong Kong was 3.45 million kg which is equal to the emissions from 750 cars for an entire year (based on the U.S. EPA’s estimate of 4600 kg of CO2/car/year). Overland transport to Canada and Mexico from nearby states and shipments less than 1 full TEU shipping container were excluded from the carbon emissions analysis.
The total sea freight carbon emissions from 2019 U.S. plastic waste exports is estimated to be 120 million kg which is equal to the emissions from 26,000 cars per year. It should be noted that while import trade from Asia enables low cost return shipping via empty containers, the “carbon cost” of adding freight weight to ships is not free or low carbon. Added tonnage requires additional fuel for transporting the freight weight.
Diversion Goals Are Pushing Plastic Waste Exports and Freight Carbon Emissions
U.S. states and the Federal Government have been promoting “diversion” of waste from landfills for decades. The pressure to “divert” plastic waste appears to be a driver for exporting plastic waste since the U.S. lacks domestic plastic reprocessing capacity. Even in states where secure landfills are available with long term capacity at low cost, plastic waste is being trucked long distances to ports and shipped to countries with poor waste management to meet diversion goals. Too often, the media supports the myth that “diversion” is an admirable goal and achievement without evaluating the final fate and destination of the collected waste.
It is time for every state and community to examine the unintended, harmful consequences of their diversion goals and revise legislation to ensure responsible management of each state’s waste. Actions to find markets for discarded plastic materials collected in U.S. communities should not negatively impact communities in other countries. The carbon emissions of waste thousands of miles around the world also cannot be overlooked.
Public Sentiment to Stop Plastic Waste Exports Grows
There has been good news over the past year as some U.S. waste collection companies and communities have ended plastic waste exports to countries with high waste mismanagement. In 2019, Waste Management adopted a corporate policy to ship post-consumer plastics to only North American plastic recyclers/processors. Casella Waste Systems, the nation’s fifth largest waste collection and sortation company, no longer exports residential plastics.
As investigations and reports showed that plastic waste exports were dumped or burned after being shipped thousands of miles, the awareness has led to growing public and professional sentiment against the offshoring practice. As the Cape May Herald reported, “Even staunch advocates of recycling began to question how this made any environmental or economic sense.”
According to chemical industry experts at Independent Commodity Intelligence Services (ICIS), “China is no longer a route for recycling and the expectation is that countries now deal with their own waste.” A representative of the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) stated: “We’re producing a lot of waste ourselves, and we should take care of it ourselves.”
“We Cannot Turn a Blind Eye to the Hard Truths Being Uncovered”
Faced with the knowledge that their plastic waste could harm communities in other countries, responsible U.S. communities are choosing to stop exports:
Cordova, Alaska: The Copper River Watershed Project has stopped collecting plastic waste because “we cannot turn a blind eye to the hard truths being uncovered. By continuing to recycle plastic, evidence strongly suggests we as a nation may actually do more harm than good because we are simply passing the problem onto countries less fortunate than ours and we are avoiding the inevitable changes society will need to make if we really want to do what is best for the environment.”
Erie, Pennsylvania: The city now instructs residents to only recycle #1 and #2 plastic bottles and jugs, stating: “We cannot collect an item for recycling, unless we have an end user who is willing to purchase and recycle that item. China used to accept most of the #3, 4, 5, and 7 plastics, but it turns out that most of these plastics were not actually being recycled. They were mostly being burned for fuel.”
San Carlos, California: ReThink Waste, a public agency that operates the Shoreway Material Recovery Facility (MRF) in San Carlos, California, publishes a traceable account of the destination of collected plastics and does not export to countries with poor waste management and states that collected plastics #3-7 material is sent to landfill.
Plastic Waste Trade Lacks Transparency and Accountability
But not all waste/recycling companies and communities have stopped exporting plastic waste to countries with poor waste management. Some companies and communities are aware that their waste is being shipped to poor countries and others employ brokers as middlemen in the process. Use of brokers presents a challenge to reducing plastic waste exports to countries with poor waste management because brokers are financially incentivized to maximize shipments and the original waste generators can claim that they don’t know where their waste is going and tell residents that it is “recycled.” Use of brokers to trade waste means that contracts can change hands several times between the source and the destinationwithout accountability. States and cities do not require that brokers or MRFs report the final destination or fate of collected materials, including final destination countries for plastic waste exports.
As a representative from a major waste company stated, “Plastics that are sold to brokers have the potential to be sent overseas, as well as to Canada, as the broker has the ability to do what they see fit with the material.” While some brokers may operate legitimate export businesses, the lack of transparency and accountability creates an open playing field for unethical business practices.
In the comprehensive survey of the 367 MRFs in the U.S. performed for Greenpeace’s Circular Claims Fall Flat report, some MRFs stated that materials collected in their communities are shipped to countries with poor waste management or to brokers. For example:
San Diego, California: City representative states about local recycler: “If they can’t find a domestic buyer for a bale of cardboard or plastic bottles, they’re going look anywhere else in the world — Vietnam, Indonesia, other parts of Asia.”
Charlotte, North Carolina: The local newspaper reports that “the county and its contractor, Republic Services, sometimes give away bales of plastic and mixed paper or even pay countries to take them.” The county’s solid waste director states: “I have no guarantee what someone will do with it once they get it. Where it goes is a bit out of our control sometimes. If it stays in this country, we know it will be taken care of. When it goes to a different country, they aren’t as environmentally safe. Whether they recycle it or landfill it or burn it, we don’t know.”
Illegal Plastic Waste Trade Grows
Reports of illegal plastic waste trade and unethical business practices grew in 2019. By January 2020, Malaysia announced that it had closed more than 200 illegal recycling factories. Flooded with plastic waste exports for more than a year, countries increased inspection and returned more plastic waste to exporting countries. But the lack of traceability made this difficult to do. Throughout Asia, there are many ports of entry that make it difficult for countries to monitor what is actually in shipping containers.
Examples of illegal trade activity and return of plastic waste:
“It’s Our Waste”: Other Countries Take Responsibility
There are compelling reasons for the U.S. and other countries to stop exporting plastic to countries with poor waste management, including reducing plastic pollution to the ocean and freight carbon emissions, increasing the focus on development of domestic waste management and recycling systems in developing countries and spurring domestic innovations to responsibly address plastic use and waste.
Other industrialized countries faced with similar plastic waste and export challenges are moving to take responsibility for their plastic waste:
United Kingdom (UK): The Environmental Bill 2020 would restrict exports of plastic waste to non-OECD countries for recycling.
European Union (EU) Circular Economy Plan: Announced on March 11, 2020, the plan aims to ”restrict exports of waste that cause negative environmental and health impacts in third countries by focusing on countries of destination, problematic waste streams and operations.”
Basel Amendment agreed to by 184 countries: In May 2019, the Parties (countries) to the United Nations Basel Convention adopted the Plastics Waste Amendment to “to specifically include plastic waste in a legally-binding framework which will make global trade in plastic waste more transparent and better regulated.” According to the head of the UN organization that administers the Basel Convention, the Basel Amendment is intended to keep more recycling of plastic scrap in the countries where it is created.
Canada: In February 2020, a bill was introduced to the House of Commons to prohibit the export of non-recyclable plastic waste from Canada to foreign countries. The Member of Parliament introducing the bill stated: “We have the means and capability to ensure the proper disposal of plastic waste right here in our own country, and we shouldn’t be exporting it for someone else to deal with.” But while Canada is a signatory to the Basel Convention, the country recently requested extra time to comply with the treaty, which will be enforced starting 2021.
The Responsible Response is to Stop Offshoring Plastic Waste
Now that the curtain has been pulled back and the harms of plastic waste exports have been exposed, the responsible response is to stop. While exporting may help U.S. communities meet “diversion goals” and avoid the problem and cost of disposing their plastic waste to landfill or incineration, there’s no denying that we’re offshoring the problem, harming other countries and making a carbon intensive, long distance contribution to the plastic pollution in the ocean we share.
Firm and effective bans are not yet in place in many countries and the end of harmful plastic waste imports is not certain as illegal trade flourishes. We cannot expect other countries to restrict and inspect our harmful plastic waste exports or expect them to stop the illegal waste trade at the receiving end. After conducting an investigation of exports to Malaysia, Greenpeace Italy stated: “We know that only a small number of containers leaving Italian ports are properly checked. A civilised country cannot close its eyes and dump the problem on a less developed nation.” In the Philippines, Greenpeace and EcoWaste Coalition identified policy loopholes in Philippine laws as an enabler of illegal and ‘legitimized’ waste trade.
The most effective way to stop the harmful and illegal plastic waste trade is to stop loading U.S. plastic waste onto ships for export.
While the U.S. and other countries have been exporting plastic waste to countries which are ill-equipped to manage it, those same countries are being blamed as the leading polluters of plastics to the ocean. The Save Our Seas 2.0 Bill largely blames Asian countries for plastic pollution to the ocean and does nothing to stop plastic waste exports to those countries. The recent addition of some types of plastic waste to the Basel Convention will not stop the flow of U.S. plastic waste to countries who are not equipped to safely and securely manage it due to illegal waste trade and non-ratification and opposition by the current U.S. Federal Administration. As the Guardian reported in May 2019, “The US is not a party to the convention so it did not have a vote, but attendees at the meeting said the country argued against the change, saying officials didn’t understand the repercussions it would have on the plastic waste trade.”
The Right SOS: Stop Our Ships
There now isproposed legislation in the U.S. Congress to stop plastic waste exports to countries with poor waste management. The plastic waste export restrictions in the “Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act of 2020,” championed by Senator Udall and Representative Lowenthal, are a major step towards taking responsibility for our plastic waste and reducing long-distance plastic pollution to the ocean, as well as here at home. Representative Lowenthal stated that “he was especially proud the bill would prevent plastic waste being exported to less developed countries where it ends up in landfills and waterways, harming human health and endangering wildlife.”
The harms of plastic waste exports to other countries and sea freight carbon emissions are proven. Our response is a measure of our integrity in dealing other countries and our true concern for the ocean and climate. At the federal, state and local levels, we must bring an end to irresponsible, damaging plastic waste exports.
More Facts & Figures: U.S. Plastic Waste Exports from 2010 to 2019
Table 1 summarizes the latest trends in the U.S. plastic waste export and recent news related to plastic waste import bans.
Table 1 – Trends in U.S. Plastic Waste Exports and Latest News
Jan Dell, PE, is an Independent Engineer and Founder of The Last Beach Cleanup. Jan has worked with companies in diverse industries to implement sustainable business practices in their operations, communities and supply chains in more than 40 countries including throughout Asia. Named a 2019 National Geographic Explorer. Appointed by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Jan was the Vice Chair of the U.S. Federal Advisory Committee on the Sustained National Climate Assessment in 2016-2017.Send her an email here.
He’s run thousands of kilometres to raise awareness of marine pollution.
The plastic waste on his home of Bali inspired him to take action.
8 million tonnes of plastic waste end up in the sea every year.
It’s around 4,800 kilometres from New York to Los Angeles – coast-to-coast, northeast to southwest, across the mountains, plains and prairies of 13 different states. It’s a journey that would take 41 hours of non-stop driving or a flight lasting six hours.
Alternatively, you could run. Yes, run. If you can cover 32 kilometres every day it would take you approximately 160 days to complete the trip. You’d have to be crazy, right? Or maybe so determined to make a difference that you believe “no idea is crazy enough.”
Step forward Sam Bencheghib, who has just completed that feat. He ran from Battery Park in New York to Santa Monica, to raise awareness about the harm plastic pollution is inflicting on our world’s oceans. He even wore running shoes made from upcycled plastic.
Monument Valley, Colorado, gave Sam the opportunity to recreate a scene from the movie Forrest Gump Image: Martin Parent/Sam Bencheghib
His journey ended on 1 February 2020, when he was accompanied by a group of 70 runners for his last mile before he jumped into the Pacific ocean to celebrate.
“It definitely wasn’t easy to get there but despite all the obstacles along the way, physically, mentally and emotionally, it was a life changing experience that I will carry with me for the rest of my life,” he said.
Time for action
His brother Gary spoke at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos this year. Together with their sister Kelly, Sam and Gary help run the Make a Change Foundation, which fights marine plastic pollution. “There are 500 times more pieces of plastic in our ocean than there are stars in our galaxy,” Gary told the Davos audience. “The truth is that there has never been a more important time to act than now.”
“It’s starting to feel like I’ve been out here forever,” Sam wrote on 11 December Image: Martin Parent/Sam Bencheghib
The Bencheghibs grew up on the Indonesian island of Bali. In 2017, the two brothers paddled along the heavily-polluted Citarum river in a kayak made from plastic bottles to raise awareness about the trash clogging up the waterway. At Davos, Gary was unveiling his latest initiative – Sungai Watch, an online platform that uses artificial intelligence and river barriers to detect and trap plastic and other debris. ‘Sungai’ means river in Indonesian.
Sam’s journey ran into difficulties on the last stretch. With just 720 kilometres left of his mammoth journey, he damaged his Achille’s tendon. “Sometimes no matter how hard you try to do everything right, you get unlucky,” Sam wrote on the Make a Change blog. Undeterred, he picked up some hiking poles and started walking rather than running.
“I’ll be pushing through with these walking sticks, one step at a time, doing 24 miles a day until I finish this thing.” Image: Martin Parent/Sam Bencheghib
Along the way, Sam met with residents of landlocked parts of the US to talk about his experiences dealing with coastal and river-borne plastic pollution. He visited schools and universities, conducted zero-waste workshops, and plogging events to clean up local neighbourhoods.
“I’m bringing the ocean to citizens around the US who don’t necessarily understand the problem,” Sam said in an interview last year. “A big part of it is that no matter where you live, inland or by the coasts, everyone contributes to this problem because they’re using plastic. And 80% of the plastic in the ocean comes from rivers and streams.”
Research has found mealworms can eat plastic and still be nutritious as food for other animals.
Even those that ate Styrofoam, which contains a toxic chemical, seemed to show no adverse side-effects and the chemical didn’t build up in its body.
New findings suggest mealworms could be the solution to our big plastic problem.
They can not only consume various forms of plastic, but also Styrofoam containing a common and toxic chemical additive. And even after that meal, they can serve as protein-rich feedstock for other animals.
The study is the first to look at where chemicals in plastic end up after being broken down in a natural system—a yellow mealworm’s gut, in this case. It serves as a proof of concept for deriving value from plastic waste.
“This is definitely not what we expected to see,” says Anja Malawi Brandon, a PhD candidate in civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University and lead author of the paper in Environmental Science & Technology.
The process of how meal worms could help to minimize plastic waste. Image: Environmental Science and Technology
“It’s amazing that mealworms can eat a chemical additive without it building up in their body over time.”
Mealworms as animal food
In earlier work, researchers revealed that mealworms, which are easy to cultivate and widely used as a food for animals ranging from chickens and snakes to fish and shrimp, can subsist on a diet of various types of plastic.
They found that microorganisms in the worms’ guts biodegrade the plastic in the process—a surprising and hopeful finding. However, concern remained about whether it was safe to use the plastic-eating mealworms as feed for other animals given the possibility that harmful chemicals in plastic additives might accumulate in the worms over time.
“This work provides an answer to many people who asked us whether it is safe to feed animals with mealworms that ate Styrofoam“, says Wei-Min Wu, a senior research engineer in the civil and environmental engineering department.
The researchers looked at Styrofoam or polystyrene, a common plastic typically used for packaging and insulation that is costly to recycle because of its low density and bulkiness.
It contains a flame retardant called hexabromocyclododecane, or HBCD, commonly added to polystyrene. The additive is one of many used to improve plastics’ manufacturing properties or decrease flammability.
Plastic, worms, shrimp
In 2015 alone, nearly 25 million metric tons of these chemicals were added to plastics, according to various studies. Some, such as HBCD, can have significant health and environmental impacts, ranging from endocrine disruption to neurotoxicity. Because of this, the European Union plans to ban HBCD, and US Environmental Protection Agency is evaluating its risk.
Mealworms in the experiment excreted about half of the polystyrene they consumed as tiny, partially degraded fragments and the other half as carbon dioxide. With it, they excreted the HBCD—about 90% within 24 hours of consumption and essentially all of it after 48 hours.
Mealworms fed a steady diet of HBCD-laden polystyrene remained as healthy as those eating a normal diet. The same was true of shrimp fed a steady diet of the HBCD-ingesting mealworms and their counterparts on a normal diet. The plastic in the mealworms’ guts likely played an important role in concentrating and removing the HBCD.
The researchers acknowledge that mealworm-excreted HBCD still poses a hazard, and that other common plastic additives may have different fates within plastic-degrading mealworms. While hopeful for mealworm-derived solutions to the world’s plastic waste crisis, they caution that lasting answers will only come in the form of biodegradable plastic replacement materials and reduced reliance on single-use products.
“This is a wake-up call,” Brandon says. “It reminds us that we need to think about what we’re adding to our plastics and how we deal with it.”
